Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pinto, Oct 14, 2003.
God Damn traitors
Where's Michael Moore's name?
tattooed on the ass of some 10,000 NRA members?
On one side it says "Michae" and on the other it says "Moore".
He's a member of the NRA. Kinda ambiguous ain't it
I know he is, but somehow I doubt he's a favorite of theirs.
From what I've read of statements by many of the various individuals on the list, they're against private ownership of firearms. So, why wouldn't they be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?
If an organization supports those views, or supports groups who regularly call for laws which are seen as inefficacious as to crime, but are merely "hassles" for honest citizens, why would these not be considered as hostile to the interests of the NRA?
The question is not why wouldnt they be considered hostile, it is why would any respectable NGO publish a list of hostiles on their website.
And what does the list accomplish? How should members of the NRA use this information? Harass them? Camp outside their houses? Refuse to do business with them? "Take them out?"
I just don't see the purpose of publishing this information. Its childish and completely lacks effect for anything but harming these individuals personally.
If the NRA thinks that guns should be "more legal" (not trying to assign worth here, I just don't know how else to phrase it), they should win on the basis of their arguments, by appealing to congress or individuals, or by using their massive lobbying power. They shouldn't resort to this type of tactic.
Speak out against guns and end up on "the list!"
Who knows what the consequences could end up being...
Some folks use such lists for personal boycott purposes. From what I've seen, it's not as emotional as Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers with such things as the grape boycott.
Other gunowners make decisions about trivial stuff as music concerts or movies; why put money into the pockets of somebody who offends you?
It can affect one's views as to credibility of press releases from some organization on certain subjects.
It's like any information pertinent to the interests of a group.
As far as "personal consequences", I'd expect none at all. As a group, shooters and hunters I've known over a number of decades are among the more honorable. In right at thirty years of having a table at various gunshows, I've yet to get a hot check...But insofar as gun-violence, the vast majority of gun owners are reactors, not actors. Absent physical threat, they're a rather laid-back group.
Farmers, ranchers, doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, etc., aren't exactly known for raising a ruckus in the community.
Like any group, we've got our problem children. I'm not talking about criminals; I'm thinking more of the sort who study case law and the Constitution and are rather hot-headed about what they do indeed see as infringment. As I've said before, many of us will willingly cooperate with efficacious laws against criminals with guns.
If anybody's interested, I'm a moderator in the "Hunting" and "Rifle Country" forums at http://www.thehighroad.org We don't allow bad language or flaming. "Attack ideas, not people" is rather rigidly enforced. The Legal & Political forum sometimes gets a bit heated, what with a couple of resident Liberal Gunowners; one from England and one from Israel.
If you let them keep a list, the next step will be that the jackbooted thugs will come take your guns away. Oh wait wrong list!
I like the list. Makes it easier for me to not spend my disposable income to line the pockets of people that seek to undermine one of the rights protected by the US Constitution.
You forgot fruit company engineers.
I remember seeing people wearing H&K tshirts, Sig Sauer tshirts, Glock tshirts walking around at lunch time. Too bad there isn't a shooting club there.
IIRC, Adobe has a shooting club. :envy:
If people walked around my company wearing weapons t-shirts, I would probably think they were insecure and had small penises.
i might be just a tad more conservative and wait until they climbed into their SUVs...
Are you kidding me? First, it is debatable whether the right to own a submachine gun is protected under the constitution (the constitution protects the right of a regulated militia to be armed), but assuming that the constitution was written with the intent of me owning an M-60, why on earth should someone's livelihood be compromised because they happen to disagree with that interpretation of the constitution? I mean, if the concept is attack the ideas (granted that was stated by another poster), not the people, then why on earth would you think that it is ok to try to take away their ability to earn a living?
Thus, turning civillians into enemy combatants without the rights of PoW's.
Sorry, mccrain, I just don't follow your point in "why on earth should someone's livelihood be compromised because they happen to disagree with that interpretation of the constitution?"
Full-auto weapons have been federally controlled since 1934. According to testimony before Congress by representatives of the BATF, no crime was ever committed by somebody with a registered machine gun. The NRA discovered and reported one incident at around that time, wherein a policeman in Oklahoma used a department weapon to kill his wife. One other incident of a criminal use of a registered machine gun was reported a few years ago, again by a policeman.
The machine gun population of the US, non-military, is split about equally between police and non-police; it's estimated at around 220,000, total. (Machine guns are a delightful way to turn money into noise, and it's the money-aspect that causes my interest to be low. )
Anybody with skill and access to a lathe, milling machine, and the US Patent Department can build a machine gun. It's far easier, today, than it was for John M. Browning.
Some arguments over the 2nd Amendment have included the idea that it applies only to rifles, since that's what people had back in the 1700s. That line of argument would have one believe the 1st Amendment wouldn't apply to typewriters, radio or TV. And now, the Internet.
the constitution was originally written to protect citizens from only the national government not the state government. This was changed with the 14th amendment and a series of court rulings known as incorporation. The rulings basically set precedent for which of the rights in the Bill of Rights would also be granted to preople in relation to state governments. Incorporation sucessfully granted people freedom of speech, press, reliegion and due process (also in the 14th) in regards to state governments. But one of the only bill of rights amendments that didnt get incorporated by a supreme court case was the right to bear arms. So the moral of te story is: while the natl. gov. cant take away your guns, under the way the constitution is written and the past precedents, the state gov. technically could.
No real point here, just thought it was interesting.
Just for some background info, I'm not really against gun ownership. I'm from the U.P. of Michigan. Its what some people would call "backwoods." While I'm not a hunter (I don't like killing, really), pretty much all of the men in my family are. I completely support their right to hunt deer, rabbit and any other legal animal. In fact, my father's family put food on the table for a good part of the year by having each man of the family hunt animals.
Anyway, the U.P. is rife with gun owners, mostly rifles and shotguns. Far more people there own a gun than in most places in the country. Even so, gun crime is practically non-existant. Same with Canada.
I can see how guns are often not the problem.
But inner-city Chicago is a far different place than the U.P. Gun crime is high. The west side sees something like 200+ murders a year, the majority of which are gun-related. This can often be tracked to gang-crime, and the weapons used are more often than not, illegally obtained, but it is gun crime nonetheless. I think fixing the root causes--POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING--is very important, but we can't just let any person in Chicago have a gun, now can we?
I guess what I'm saying, Rat, is that you and I probably agree on many issues. I do think some restrictions are good, though. I'm not sure you do.
Anyway, even though we agree a lot on gun ownership, I can't agree with you on blacklisting. I personally think its disgusting behavior. The fact that the NRA would use the term "hostile" to describe these people speaks volumes by itself. Most of these people aren't "hostile" they simply disagree. What the NRA is attempting to do is cut out the legs of people who disagree with them.
Rat, you and I disagree a lot on many issues. But I'd like to think if a were running a store and you came into it, I could shake your hand and if you wanted something you would buy it from me. I'd do the same. Just because we disagree doesn't make either you or myself a bad person. We could even be friends. We just disagree.
This type of move takes the civility out of discussions and is a petty way to try and undermine your opponents on an issues. Also, it is generally inneffective. A few people not buying albums from an anti-gun musician won't make even a tiny difference.
But the list could be used for bad purposes. All it takes is one delusional NRA member (not saying NRA members are delusional, but lets face it, there's one in every group) to take "the list" to heart and we have a tragedy on our hands.
I don't like it one bit. No sir.
Funny thing about the NRA, they don't mind keeping a "hostiles" list, but the don't want the government to have a list of all legally registered guns and who their owners and buyers are (kinda like we do with cars) because they fear that the list, once assembled, will be used for bad purposes. Specifically they fear that such a list will result in the eventual removal of their guns. I guess they feel like the average citizen should be trusted more than the federal government (I know many of them are deeply hostile to the federal system), but doesn't it smack of hypocrisy when they can keep a list of people who disagree with them, yet they refuse to conceed on a list being kept on them?
For the record, I am a weapons enthusiast, who wishes people were not idiotic enough that we could allow civilians access to (most of the) same weapons the military has. I would like to see EVERY gun crime solved, thus making it virtually impossible to even conceive of using a gun in a crime unless you WANT to get caught.
I would rather that there are no criminals, but ever since known history, there has been murder. Best way to counteract that is to make it more difficult for the would be criminal to do their thing. Don't know about you, but a dead criminal would never do a single crime again. And having the criminal be killed by their would-be next victim is very fitting.
But, since we are talking about arms (weapons), if you reread US vs Miller case, which was the case that directly confronted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which sough to impose a $200 tax on automatic weapons and sound suppressors, it actually said that the only weapons that are guarranteed by the Second Amendment to the citizen are ones that help in preserving a well-regulated militia.
Pretty weird, but I seem to have a few catalogs from Beretta and other shotgun manufacturers that say short-barrel shotguns are only for sale to military and police agencies. Sounds pretty clear cut to me that if a weapon is suited for the military and police, then it would be suited for a militia as well.
Also, in 1934, $200 is a LOT of money. How can you tax a thing such as a shotgun for $200, when the shotgun itself only cost like $5? Seems to me that the tax was a punitive tax designed to infringe on the ownership of such an arm.
Okay, you put up multiple points...
1) You are against killing of animals.
2) Crime is bad, and best way to fix it is by fixing the root causes (POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING)
3) List can be used for bad purposes, and you are afraid that someone might use it for something bad.
4) You don't like it.
Here is my rebuttal.
1) Are you a vegetarian? Isn't it pretty disingenious to be against the killing of animals but for paying someone else to do your killing for you in order to eat meat? Me, I'm not against killing. I think that others can do it more cheaply than I can with their ranches and farms. But I would also like know that I am capable of providing for myself if I need to. Having the tools and means to do that is a prerequisite.
2) Crime is bad. I agree with you there, but why is it required that crime victims be disarmed? Which is the only thing gun control does. Crime control is better, but we already have laws against crime. POVERTY and DRUG TRAFFICKING, how do you propose to fix that? Tax the rich, give to the poor?
3) Responsible gun owners, and there are a lot of them in this country do not go out and murder people on a list. At last count, there are over 200 million, thats a 2 followed by 8 zeros, privately owned firearms in the United States. How many of those were used in a violent criminal act in the past day? Past week? FBI says in 2002, there were 353,880 Thats 0.177%! So, you would make a law that punishes 99.83% of responsible gun owners in order to get the 0.177%?!!!
4) Isn't this country great? Freedom of speech/press applies not only to you, but to other groups as well. Even groups that you do not agree with. And the same Freedom of speech/press allows you to challenge these other groups too. Thats the only way the best ideas come out, when they are subjected to scrutiny from multiple fronts. I'm sure you know about Galileo and how the Church squelched him. Bad stuff, Maynard.
Okay... check thisout.
Ottoman Turkey - 1.5million armenians dead
Soviet Union - 20 million anti-communists dead
Nazi Germany - 13 million jews dead
China - 20 million anti-communists dead
Guatemala - 100,000 indians dead
Uganda - 300,000 christians dead
Cambodia - 1 million smart people dead
That is 55.9 million dead people from 1915 to 1981. Average of 846,000 dead people each year. In WW2, there were 14.9 million dead soldiers.
Maybe we should have more wars and less gun control laws. More people would be alive that way.
No one is taking away their ability to earn a living. The only thing being done here is to inform the consumers of the political ideas coming from these people. How is that a bad thing? I could argue that the liberals did the same thing to Dr. Laura Schlesinger.